Phony at American Legion Conference
ood
The title is probably unfair to Tim Walz, because he certainly does talk well for veterans, and that’s probably why TSO gives him a pass for embellishing his military career. Walz, on his campaign web site, wrote that he was deployed in support of the war in Iraq, but “in support of” in this case meant that he ran base security in Italy.
Our buddy, Dave Thul, wrote about Walz a few years back;
It took me about two months to realize that Congressman Walz, contrary to the statement on his official congressional website, did not serve in Afghanistan. He served in Italy, in charge of base security. In order to understand this discrepancy, it is useful to know a little bit about military terms. “In Support Of” means just that, a mission to support a major military operation. It is a vague term even among military members and the military itself. For instance, when I deployed to Kosovo in 2004, my military orders stated “Purpose: Operation Joint Guardian”, while my official discharge papers listed me as being “ordered to active duty in support of Operation Joint Guardian”.
To the best of my knowledge, Walz has never come clean about this discrepancy, and until he does, he’s still on my shit list.
Category: Congress sucks, Phony soldiers
“In support of” is an old term with a set meaning. Known a number of reservists/guardsmen who were mobilized ‘in support of’ OEF and OIF, and were sent to Tampa.
Of course, this dude’s “Ft Sill, OK, 1972- 74, to earn G.I. Bill” became “Viet Nam, 1966- 75, with CMH with “V” at Khe Sahn” probably.
No, it’s not unfair. His invoking Operation Enduring Freedom led many, many people to conclude that he is a combat veteran. These people included journalists and bloggers, some of whom later set the record straight for their readers. Others did not. Walz was a full-time geography teacher and spoiled some of his weekends with NG duties prior to winning a seat in Congress. He has used his rank as a National Guardsman to his political advantage and has “technically” told the truth (“in support of Operation Enduring Freedom”). His support may have included a visit to the Coliseum and the Leaning Tower of Pisa but it did include one to Afghanistan.
#3 2-17AirCav,
“In support of” mean ‘whatever one is directed to do.’ Is he sporting a combat patch from his deployment? Did his opponents NOT bring up the confusion during his election campaign?
The guy served 24 years, made E-9 and did a deployment overseas. That should be plenty to be proud of.
But his bio says ‘served in support of Operation Enduring Freedom’ which most civilians take to mean served in Afghanistan. His staff has admitted that it may confuse people, but they have never changed it.
He’s been introduced on live TV interviews as a ‘combat veteran of Afghanistan’ and never corrected the host.
And he held a sign at a protest rally that said ‘Enduring Freedom vets for Kerry’, but which supposedly wasn’t supposed to mean that he was the OEF vet supporting Kerry.
TSO is right that the guy is very charismatic and personable when you talk to him, and he does support veterans issues.
But a charismatic liar is still a liar, and a guy who is a vet and in Congress should automatically support veterans issues at a minimum.
Well, it seems some politicians, no matter what party, have wallowed in the grey area in order to further their political career. Remember that chick in, I believe, Ohio that would campaign wearing a very impressive ribbon rack? She had all these mail order ribbons that were bought, not awarded or earned, that she intermingled with the ones she was awarded for her Air Force service. Plus, it looked downright tacky wearing a ribbon rack on civilian attire.
Congressman Walz has never to my knowledge misrepresented his military service. That some people misunderstand or misinterpret the meaning of “in Support Of” and translate it to ‘is a combat veteran’ should NOT equate to labeling Walz a phony or a liar.
#7 NNV:
“I ride Lipizzans.”
Now what does that tell you? It’s true, of course. Except…it’s not. Written like that, to the uninitiated, it sounds like I ride the famous Lipizzan Stallions of the Spanish riding school. The reality is that the two Lipizzans I have ridden were both bred here, and neither were trained in high school dressage, although both were very fine saddle horses. But there is a universe of difference between my actual experience and what I indicated in the first sentence, EVEN THOUGH WHAT I SAID WAS STRICTLY THE TRUTH.
The same goes for the difference between “in combat support” and “in combat.” To the uninitiated, the crucial difference may not be evident, and it SHOULD be explained, to prevent misinterpetation.
@ 7 OJ Simpson has never, to my knowledge, misrepresented his criminal culpability in the deaths of two people. That some people misunderstand or misinterpret the meaning of “not guilty” and translate it to “sure, but he really did do it” should not equate to labeling Simpson a murderer. (You see how easy it is to play technicalities?)